420 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 because it is legislation; and, on the principle that two wrongs do not make
 one right, it seems to me the Senator from Arkansas cannot logically argue
 against the point of order made by the Senator from Colerado simply by
 reason of the fact that no Senator has as yet seen fit to make the point of order
 against the committee amendment.
 Mr. BoarsBON. Mr. President, if the Senatbr will permit me to state the
 case I think I can convince him that the position he has just announced is not
 well taken.
 The committee has proposed the insertion of an amendment to the bill which
 itself is legislation, and the insertion of that amendment makes necessary the
 consideration of the amendment I have proposed, unless it is designed indirectly
 to prevent the allotment of funds appropriated in the bill for the two projects
 carried in my amendment.
 The language which the committee has offered is: "No Federal project shall
 be undertaken or prosecuted with funds provided for in this appropriation
 unless and until an amount sufficent for its completion has been allocated and
 irrevocably set aside for its completion", and so forth.
 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to interrupt him in
 order to make an inquiry
 Mr. Romiseo. Yes. I should like to have a chance to state my case, but I
 will yield to the Senator from Colorado.
 Mr. Anax. Mr. President, I shall not interrupt the Senator if he would
 rather I should not do so.
 Mr. BomIson. I yield.
 Mr. AbAxs. My inquiry is directed to the particular part of the bill which
 the Senator was reading. It occurred to me that that was a limitation upon
 an appropriation rather than legislation. The Senate and the Appropriations
 Committee have authority, under the rules, to impose limitations upon appro-
 priations, and I think that is the interpretation which is applicable to the
 section which the Senator is reading.
 Mr. RBomsoN. No, Mr. President; that interpretation is not sound. Under
 the law which we passed last year the President made an allotment of funds
 for the two projects incorporated or referred to in this amendment, and he
 had full authority to make that allotment. The committee now proposes
 as an affirmative proposition to prevent the initiation of Federal projects un-
 less the entire amount necessary for their completion Is provided at the time
 they are initiated. That is not a limitation in the legal or proper sense of
 the word. It Is an effrmative provision of law.
 Under the existing law the President could allot any portion of the funds
 appropriated in this bill to carry forward the two projects which are under
 consideration; but the committee seeks to prevent that from being done by
 having enacted a provision of law that no project shall be undertaken unless
 all the funds that are necessary for its completion shall be supplied at once.
 My contention is that that is general legislation; under the indisputable prece-
 dents of the Senate it is subject to amendment; and the point of order that
 the amendment relates to general legislation does not lie; otherwise, the com-
 mittee could violate its own rules and have immunity from the correction of
 such mistakes as It might be found to have made.
 The committee seeks now to enact a general law on the subject of initiating
 projects, namely, that no project shall be commenced unless all the money
 necessary for its completion Is provided at the time of its commencement If
 that is not general legislation, if it does not come within the rule to which
 reference has been made, it is difficult to conceive a case in which that would
 occur.
 So, I assume there is no question about the right of the Senate to amend
 this amendment. The committee cannot propose to legislate in a general
 appropriation bill and deny the right of the Senate to modify its proposition.
 Mr. LA FouLLra Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. Romarwon. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
 Mr. LA PoLrLwm. In other words, Mr. President, If I understand the Sen-
 ator's position, it is that if the point of order is to He at all, It must lie
against the committee amendment after it shall have been perfected by such
amendments as Senators may desire to offer to it, whether legislative in
character or not.
 Mr. RoeasoN. Possibly the point of order might be made against the com-
mittee amendment itself; but the committee amendment, constituting legis-
lation, is subject to amendment.